Originalveröffentlichung in: Ute Schüren, Daniel Marc Segesser, Thomas Späth (Hg.) Globalized Antiquity. Uses and Perceptions of the Past in South Asia, Mesoamerica, and Europe, Berlin 2015, S. 297-316 Chapter 13 The Making of a Bourgeois Antiquity: Wilhelm von Humboldt and Greek History 1 Stefan Rebenich Abstract The question "Where do we stand?" asked by Wilhelm von Humboldt in his review of the eigh- teenth century expresses a borderline experience around 1800, which lastingly influenced the perception of the past and the present in Germany. The main focus of the reception of antiquity shifted from Rome to Hellas. Individuals were meant to grasp Greek culture in its diversity and Greek character in its totality. The study of Greek history established a new conception of up- bringing, education and scholarship, but also of nation, state, and society. The idealised Greek city-states were a pivotal point of reference and comparison for the definition of education, which is seminal to bourgeois society as a permanent process of self-perfection, for the description of the relationshipbetween freedom and education, for the connection between individual, society and state, and for the discussion of principles of social organisation and structure. The study of classical antiquity was the main theme of neo-humanistic teaching - and an effective instrument of social exclusion in nineteenth-century class society. The historical upheaval in the study of an- tiquity, which was tangible in Germany around 1800, brought forth the concepts of both classical scholarship and bourgeois culture in the nineteenth century. "Where do we stand?" asked Wilhelm von Humboldt in his review of the eighteenth century. "Which part of its long and arduous path has mankind covered? Is it on a course that leads to the final destination?"2 The text is more than just a glimpse of the past: it 1 The works of Wilhelm von Humboldt referred to in this essay are cited in accordance with his Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 1-17 published by the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences (Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften), Berlin 1903-1936 (reprinted 1967/68). Volume and page numbers follow the abbreviation GS. Volume and page numbers in brackets refer to the follow- ing anthology: Wilhelm von Humboldt, Werke in fünfBänden, eds. A. Flitner and K. Giel, Darm- stadt 1960-1981 (various reprints). - An earlier version of this paper was published in Lanieri 2011: 119-137. I would like to thank Richard Brobson for his help with the translation. 2 Humboldt, "Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert", GS II, 1 (I, 376). 297 Stefan Rebenich expres ses a borderline experience, around 1800, which had a profound influence on the perception of past and present in Germany. Greek antiquity was rediscovered in the mid-eighteenth century. Greece became the foremost object of productive artistic reception. At the same time, the exclusionist vision of classical culture associated with nobility began to end3 and the neo-humanist teaching at grammar schools and the scientific research at universities concentrated equally on the study of Greece and Rome. The ancients were no longer timeless models, but histori- cised paradigms for Wissenschaft, literature, and the arts. Their works were still regarded as perfect, but also as historically constituted and therefore specific. The new German image of antiquity was characterised by a latent tension between classical aesthetics and enlightening historicism, and shifted between the canonisation of an idealised image of antiquity, on the one hand, and the recognitionof its interconnection with other cultures, on the other. These categories were paradigmatically articulated in the work of Wilhelm von Humboldt. The aristocratic pupil of the classicist Christian Gottlob Heyne from Göt- tingen made it possible for the hitherto aristocratic veneration of the classics to become a field of enquiry with a scientific basis, and enabled the academic study of antiquity to ascend to a common leading discipline, which lastingly shaped the values and the curric- ulum of the class called the bourgeoisie. But what was the bourgeoisie? Bourgeoisie: An Attempt at a Definition It has long been acknowledged that conventional social parameters such as birth, ed- ucation, occupation, or economic resources are insufficient for attempts to define the bourgeoisie. A specific kind of lifestyle, a specific "culture" has to be added in order to reconcile the difference between the heterogeneity of social positions and the homoge- neity of intellectual identities.4 Thus, the bourgeois society is a model of acculturation, and contemporary historical research has specified numerous values and behaviours that determine middle-class culture, citizen attitude, or simply the middle-class way of life (Bürgerlichkeit): education, individual freedom, personal interest, the development of per- sonal talents, the organisation of society from within, an orientation toward the common good, creativity and rationality, a belief in progress, striving for material possessions, the family as a private sphere, the autonomy of literature, music, and the plastic arts, etc.5 Over the course of the nineteenth century, these values constituted a system of endur- ing behavioural arrangements in a way that, notwithstanding different social bases, the representatives of the bourgeoisie attained perfectly comparable lifestyles. In this context, 3 See Walther 1998. 4 See Lepsius 1987. 5 See the relevant passages in Nipperdey 1998: vol. 1 and 2/1. See further Conze /Kocka /Koselleck et al. 1985-1992; Hahn /Hein 2005; Kocka 1987; Kocka 1995; Lundgreen 2000; Maurer 1996; Schulz 2005; Vierhaus 1981. 298 Chapter 13 The Making of a Bourgeois Antiquity middle-class intellectuals became the most important impetus of bourgeois culture. They were that part of the middle class that founded its claim to social excellence on the pos- session of knowledge and on a lifestyle derived from this possession. Current research mostly ignores the importance of European antiquity for the for- mation of the bourgeoisie, for the emergence of middle-class intellectuals, and for the genesis of a bourgeois culture as a whole.6 Yet as will be argued, in early nineteenth-cen- tury Germany, antiquity as a historiographical construct and as an idealised timeless projection contributed considerably to both the homogenisation of the bourgeoisie and the constitutionof middle-class culture. The Institutional Framework The importance of Wilhelm von Humboldt for the nationalisation of the learned classes and for neo-humanist educational reform has long been the subject of debates in schol- arly literature. In the eyes of some scholars, the few months that Humboldt worked as privy councillor and head of the section for cultural affairs and public education in the Prussian Ministry of the Interior, from February 1809 to April or June 1810, make him the most influential minister for education and cultural affairs in German history.7 Amid the collapse of Prussia, Humboldt demanded a reform of the school system, for which he fought in his two memoranda, the Königsberg and the Lithuanian plan for school organisation.8 Moreover, he advanced a successful application of the memoranda, which embraced ideas of Schelling, Schleiermacherand Fichte, in the foundation of Berlin Uni- versity. 9 It has been asserted that Humboldt, apart from "the certainly significant achieve- ment of founding the university in Berlin," in effect "accomplished nothing of importance in life."10 Others have suggested that his attempt at reform comprised an episode without consequences,11 and it has been argued recently that the idea of a "Humboldt University" is, in fact, a late nineteenth and early twentieth-century invention.12 Admittedly, it is indisputable that there were divergences between Humboldt's con- ception of an educational ideal and its practical implementation;13 that reforms in the 6 See, for example, Hein/Schulz 1996: 10, who state that the connection of antiquity and bour- geois culture will "not be treated as an independent topic in this volume." 7 See, for example, Berglar 2003: 81. On Humboldt's work at the Ministry of the Interior, see Sweet 1980: 3-106. 8 GS XIII, 259-283 (IV, 168-195). 9 Humboldt, "Über die innere und äußere Organisation der höheren wissenschaftlichen Anstal- ten in Berlin," GS X, 250-260 (IV, 255-266). See vom Bruch 2001. 10 Kaehler 1927: 242f. 11 Menze 1975: 47f. 12 Paletschek 2002; Paletschek 2001. 13 Benner 1995. 299 Stefan Rebenich fields of Wissenschaft and education took shape before Humboldt's reform;14 that older scholarly literature tended to idealise Humboldt; 15 and that making the "Humboldt myth" topical was of exceptional importance in numerous educational and higher-educational policy crises.16 But it is also indisputable that Humboldt's reflections on the content and function of education and his ideas about the different kinds of teaching at schools and universities had a continuous effect after 1810, even beyond the scope of Cabinet politics. After Humboldt was appointed head of the newly founded section for cultural affairs and education in the Ministry of the Interior, he was able to exploit the euphoria for reform, which had prevailed in the devastated Prussian state after its military defeat. Leveraging this mood during his term of office, which lasted barely sixteen months, enabled Hum- boldt to give important impulses to the creation of a unified public school and university system, which reflected his ideas of a